AN  OPEN  LETTER  TO 
J  x        THE  NATION 
WITH  REGARD  TO 
A  PEACE  PLAN 


UC-NRLF 


SfiM  BY 

JAMES  HOWARD  KEHLER 


c\j 

LO 
CM 

v>0 

o 

CO 


This  letter  was  first  printed  in  the  Decem- 
ber, 1914,  issue  of  The  Forum. 


AN  OPEN  LETTER  TO 

THE  NATION 

WITH  REGARD  TO 

A  PEACE  PLAN 

BY 
JAMES  HOWARD  KEHLER 


NEW  YORK 

MITCHELL  KENNERLEY 
1915 


Copyright 

May  22,  1914,  by 

James  Howard  Kehler 


Copyright  1914.  by 
James  Howard  Kehler 


When  crowds  have  come,  as  the  result  of 
*  *  *  changes  of  belief,  to  acquire  a  profound 
antipathy  for  the  images  evoked  by  certain 
words,  the  first  duty  of  the  true  statesman  is 
to  change  the  words. — Gustave  Le  Bon. 


The  work  of  the  consulate  and  the  empire 
consisted  more  particularly  in  the  clothing 
with  new  words  of  the  greater  part  of  the  in- 
stitutions of  the  past — De  Tocqueville. 


AN   OPEN   LETTER   TO    THE   NATION 


FOREWORD 

Herewith  is  presented  a  peace  plan 
Which  is  not  politically  controversial: 
Which  requires  no  international  agree- 
ments, calls  for  no  new  tribunals  or  other 
machinery  of  operation  and  will  involve  no 
change  in  present  governmental  practices: 
Which  is  not  offered  as  a  substitute  for 
such  proposed  solutions  of  the  war  problem 
as  arbitration,  disarmament,  etc.,  but  as 
an  aid  toward  the  development  of  a  public 
sentiment  for  such  measures: 

Which  does  not  suggest  the  immediate 
abolition  of  war,  an  obvious  impossibility 
until  public  sentiment  shall  demand  its 
abolition,  but  which  provides  for  the  auto- 
matic direction  and  acceleration  of  public 
thought  toward  the  ideal  of  peace  instead  of 
toward  the  ideal  of  war: 

Which  proposes  to  accomplish  these  ends 
by  the  utilization  of  known  principles  in 
psychology. 


THE  LETTER 

TO  THE  PRESIDENT,  THE  MINISTERS  OF 
GOVERNMENT,  AND  THE  CONGRESS  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES:  TO  THE  MEMBERS  OF 
PEACE  SOCIETIES:  TO  THE  PRESS  AND  TO 
THE  PEOPLE: 

GREETING 

I  beg  respectfully  to  suggest  that  the 
department  of  Government  now  known  as 
the  War  Department  hereafter  be  called 
the  Peace  Department;  that  its  Ministers 
hereafter  may  be  known  as  Secretaries  of 
Peace;  that  what  are  known  as  War  Policies 
hereafter  may  be  known  as  Peace  Policies. 

It  will  be  agreed,  I  think,  that  the  new 
word  expresses  more  accurately  than  the  old 
the  present  functions,  temper  and  intent  of 
our  Government  in  its  international  rela- 
tions; that  our  War  Department  actually  is 
a  department  for  peace;  that  our  army  and 


10  AN   OPEN    LETTER 

navy  are,  in  intention,  agencies  for  peace, 
and  would  become  more  effectively  so  if 
their  calling  ceased  to  be  defined  as  that  of 
war;  that  our  War  Secretary  now  is,  in  effect, 
a  Minister  of  Peace,  in  that  his  primary 
office  is  not  to  make  war,  but  to  avert  it,  and 
the  degree  of  his  prestige  is  in  direct  ratio  to 
his  success  in  preserving  the  peace  and  tran- 
quillity of  our  people;  that  our  war  budgets 
are,  in  fact,  peace  budgets,  and  should  be 
called  so,  even  in  time  of  war,  inasmuch  as  it 
scarcely  will  be  denied  that  peace  would  be 
the  primary  object  of  any  war  in  which  we 
might  engage. 

Our  war  policies  being  already,  in  fact, 
peace  policies,  my  proposal  is  simply  that 
they  be  called  such,  that  our  terminology  be 
revised  to  accord  with  our  practices,  our 
intentions  and  the  ideals  of  the  present  day. 

The  tendency  of  modern  thought  is  nega- 
tive, if  not  hostile,  toward  war.  It  is  posi- 
tive toward  peace.  By  substituting  the 
concept  Peace  for  the  concept  War  in  nam- 
ing our  Departments,  our  Ministers  and  our 
Policies,  we  shall,  by  taking  advantage  of 


TO  THE  NATION  11 

the  known  suggestibility  of  the  human  mind 
and  of  the  present  current  of  public  thought, 
greatly  accelerate  that  current  in  the  direc- 
tion of  its  tendency  and  in  the  furtherance 
of  our  hopes,  our  ideals  and  the  admitted 
purposes  of  what  now  is  called  our  War 
Department. 

Inasmuch  as  the  plan  here  presented  is 
not  politically  controversial,  as  it  includes 
no  proposal  for  a  change  in  the  existing 
policies  of  our  Government,  or  in  the  actual 
practice  of  any  governmental  department,  it 
is  respectfully  suggested  that  those  to  whom 
it  is  addressed  take  such  action  as  may  lie 
within  their  power  to  bring  it  before  the 
various  legislative  bodies  of  the  United 
States  for  their  consideration;  and  in  every 
way  to  further  its  adoption  if  the  plan  shall 
be  so  fortunate  as  to  receive  their  distin- 
guished approval. 

JAMES  HOWARD  KEHLER 


AN  ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  FOREGOING  LETTER 


PEACE  FOR  WAR 

npHERE  is  a  law  of  the  association  of  ideas 
by  which  men,  and  therefore  institu- 
tions, tend  to  function  according  to  the  names 
or  titles  by  which  they  are  called,  and  accord- 
ing to  the  traditions  which  attach  to  those 
names  or  titles;  a  law  by  which  there  is 
both  internal  and  external  constraint  upon 
men  thus  to  function  traditionally,  rather 
than  creatively. 

The  laws  of  mental  action  are  so  well 
known  today  that  the  frequently  immeasur- 
able importance  of  a  word,  and  in  particular 
the  tremendous  import  of  the  names  of 
things,  are  quite  generally  recognized. 

Originally,  it  is  to  be  supposed,  names 
grew  out  of  functions  and  were  expressive 
of  them;  but  inasmuch  as  the  functions  of 
institutions  must  change  with  the  times  if 
they  are  to  continue  to  express  the  times, 
it  follows  that  names  must  be  changed  if 
they  are  not  to  limit  function  by  failing 
to  express  it. 

15 


16  AN   OPEN   LETTER 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  original  func- 
tion of  an  army  was  war.  Soldiers  were 
expected  to  fight.  An  army  not  engaged 
in  war  represented  discontent,  a  sheer  waste 
of  energy,  great  expense  and  a  certain  in- 
ternal menace.  It  was  natural  and  right 
that  the  department  of  government  which 
handled  the  army  should  be  called  the 
War  Department. 

But  the  times  have  so  changed  that  the 
chief  duty  of  an  army — in  our  country  at 
least — is  to  keep  the  peace.  Our  soldiers 
are  expected  not  to  fight,  except  under  con- 
ditions of  extreme  necessity.  The  men  who 
control  our  armies  are  considered  successful 
in  the  degree  to  which  they  avoid  conflict. 

Peace  with  honor  is  the  ideal  of  the  west- 
ern world.  The  victories  of  peace  are  our 
victories.  The  horrors  of  war  touch  the 
American  mind  more  quickly  and  deeply 
than  the  honors  of  war.  No  particular 
honor  attached  to  peace  in  the  ancient 
world.  The  battlefield  was  the  field  of 
honor  and  there  were  no  great  distinctions 
to  be  gained  elsewhere. 


TO  THE   NATION  17 


NEW  WORDS   FOR  OLD 

Since  peace  is  our  ideal  and  the  avoidance 
of  war  our  intention;  since  the  primary  office 
of  our  armies  admittedly  is  the  preservation 
of  peace,  why  should  we  not  call  that  depart- 
ment of  government  which  has  to  do  with 
our  army  the  Peace  Department? 

Why  not  revise  the  name  to  fit  the  altered 
purpose?  Why  not  thus  gain  for  our  ideal 
and  our  intention  the  enormous  suggestive 
power  which  lies  in  a  name,  rather  than  to 
go  on  handicapping  our  ideal  and  our  in- 
tention by  the  equal  suggestive  power  which 
inheres  in  a  name  that  denies  our  ideal  and 
lies  about  our  intention  every  time  it  is 
spoken  or  written? 

War  Department,  indeed !  Have  we  such 
a  department,  in  reality?  Has  our  govern- 
ment today  such  a  department,  in  fact? 
Will  our  government  today  admit  that  any 
part  of  its  purpose  is  to  make  war? 

I  speak  not  for  myself  alone,  but  for  my 
country,  I  think,  in  saying  that  deliberate 
armed  aggression  upon  other  peoples  as  a 


18  AN   OPEN   LETTER 

national  ideal  today  is  unthinkable  and 
non-existent. 

The  European  situation  may  be  inter- 
preted as  indicating  that  there  are  still  in 
the  world  monarchs  or  ministers  who  cherish 
a  secret  fondness  for  wars  of  aggression, 
but  they  are  a  relic  of  the  past,  they  do  not 
represent  the  spirit  or  the  ideals  even  of 
their  own  peoples,  and  certainly  not  that 
new -world  consciousness  which  has  set 
the  face  of  our  people  unalterably  toward 
peace. 

Our  "war  policies" — what  are  they  but 
policies  of  peace — policies  to  avoid  war  at 
any  cost  save  honor?  Why  then  designate 
what  actually  is  a  Department  for  Peace 
by  an  anachronistic  title  which  forces  us  to 
call  its  policies  by  a  false  and  misleading 
name? 

THE   SLAVERY  TO  NAMES 

A  bureau  of  government  called  the  War 
Department  clearly  is  not  functioning  with- 
in the  meaning  of  its  name  unless  it  is  war- 
ring or  planning  war.  There  exists  the 
psychological  tendency  in  every  man  en- 


TO   THE   NATION  19 

gaged  for  an  expressed  purpose,  to  feel  that 
he  must  seem  to  work  toward  that  purpose 
in  order  to  seem  to  be  doing  his  duty.  There 
is  the  same  tendency  on  the  part  of  other 
men,  the  public,  to  think  that  he  should  so 
work — a  subconscious  but  very  potent  ex- 
pectancy that  he  will  so  work. 

Thus,  under  constraint,  from  the  inside, 
of  a  name  which  tells  him  that  his  depart- 
ment is  for  war  and  that  his  business  is 
war;  and,  from  the  outside,  of  a  public 
expectancy  created  by  the  same  psycho- 
logical process,  he  is  breasting  the  current 
of  public  thought  and  of  his  own  nature. 
He  can  become  no  great  warrior  and  is  a 
negative  agent  for  peace. 

No  army  officer  today,  so  far  as  I  know, 
feels  that  he  dares  to  be  an  open  advocate 
of  peace — that  he  dare  join  definitely  in  a 
peace  movement.  He  feels  constrained  to 
talk,  act  and  look  war-like — for  is  he  not  in 
the  service  and  pay  of  war? — in  a  depart- 
ment called  the  War  Department,  and  under 
a  cabinet  minister  called  the  Secretary  of 
War?  He  must  live  up  to  the  name  of 
the  thing  he  serves,  in  appearance  at  least. 


20  AN    OPEN   LETTER 

Truly,  language  is  mighty  and  will  pre- 
vail. We  are  the  slaves  of  the  names  of 
things. 

Consider  what  it  would  mean  to  have  our 
war  secretaries,  with  our  army  and  its 
officers,  committed  definitely,  publicly  and 
by  name,  to  our  national  ideal  of  peace;  to 
give  them  the  benefit  and  stimulus  of  a 
public  expectancy  in  accordance  with 
the  public  ideal, — thus  to  utilize  for  our 
ideals  instead  of  for  our  aversions  that 
mental  law  which  constrains  men  to  express 
the  name  by  which  they  are  called. 

The  power  of  suggestion  is  too  well  known 
to  require  comment  here.  School-boys 
know  that  the  public  can  be  definitely  and 
effectively  psychologized  for  an  idea  by 
giving  the  idea  a  name  and  giving  the  name 
publicity.  The  army  and  the  government 
of  our  country  can  be  turned  into  construc- 
tive and  positive,  instead  of  negative  agents 
for  peace,  if  the  nation  will  revise  the  name 
of  one  of  its  institutions  to  accord  with  the 
present  functions  of  that  institution. 


TO   THE   NATION  21 

WAR   AND   THE  AVERAGE   MAN 

There  is  widespread  doubt,  amongst 
average  men,  of  the  usefulness  of  the  army. 
Average  men  still  think,  because  of  the 
name  under  which  it  operates,  that  the 
army  is  for  war.  The  average  man,  because 
of  the  spirit  of  the  times,  wants  peace,  not 
war.  He  wonders  sometimes  why  we  keep 
up  such  an  expensive  establishment  for  a 
thing  which  seems  to  him  rather  useless, 
out-of-date  and  remote. 

Most  Americans  now  living  never  have 
seen  a  war.  The  thought  of  war  is  not  con- 
stant and  in  the  fore-front  of  the  average 
man's  consciousness.  He  does  not  quite 
see  why  he  should  pay  anything  for  war, 
especially  when  there  is  no  war  and  when 
peace  is  what  he  wants. 

The  average  man  does  not  analyze  deeply. 
He  does  not  see  that  what  he  really  is  paying 
for  is  peace,  that  his  army  and  his  War  De- 
partment really  are  doing  all  they  can, 
under  the  handicap  of  their  name,  for  peace, 
and  as  little  as  possible  for  war.  He  is 
willing  to  pay  for  peace.  Why  not  con- 


22  AN   OPEN   LETTER 

vince  him  that  peace  is  what  he  is  paying 
for,  by  calling  it  by  its  right  name? 

I  believe  that  every  American  today 
wants  peace  more  than  he  wants  war,  but 
over  against  that  fact  must  be  placed  the 
law  of  his  nature  which  compels  him  also  to 
want  to  get  what  he  is  paying  for. 

Man's  intellect  is  better  understood  than 
his  emotions.  As  long  as  he  thinks  that  he 
is  paying  for  war,  even  though  intellectually 
he  wants  peace,  instinctively  he  feels  that 
he  is  being  swindled  when  his  government  is 
not  expending  his  money  for  war. 

Let  the  same  man  see  that  he  is  paying 
for  peace,  by  calling  it  peace,  and  in  times  of 
peace  he  will  feel  that  he  is  getting  what  he 
pays  for.  If  his  country  is  plunged  into 
war,  his  innate  dissatisfaction  will  run 
against  war,  because  he  then  will  not  be  get- 
ting what  he  is  paying  for.  His  intellectual 
preference  then  will  parallel  his  emotional 
prejudice  and  both  will  function  naturally 
for  peace.  We  shall  have  a  whole  man,  the 
two  sides  of  his  nature  harmonized  and  func- 
tioning solidly  in  one  direction — a  highly 
desirable  result,  surely. 


TO  THE  NATION  23 

Constant  criticism  is  heard  of  our  war 
budgets,  only,  I  think,  because  they  are 
called  war  budgets.  Average  men  are  quite 
likely  to  think  that  money  spent  on  war 
equipment  is  wasted  unless  we  have  war. 
In  times  of  peace  we  shall  always  hear 
criticism  of  every  expenditure  in  the  name 
of  war.  In  the  event  of  war,  however, 
we  should  hear  no  complaint  of  any  effort  or 
expenditure  in  the  name  of  peace. 

It  may  easily  be  pointed  out  that  average 
thinking  is  loose  thinking.  No  doubt,  but 
it  is  what  we  have  to  deal  with  and  we  can- 
not change  the  nature  of  it.  But  we  can 
change  the  name  of  a  thing  to  express  its 
real  nature.  When  we  do  that  we  shall 
have  a  department  for  peace,  doing  effec- 
tively and  enthusiastically  what  it  now  does 
more  or  less  furtively  and  more  or  less 
ineffectively;  we  shall  call  the  policies  of 
that  department  peace  policies,  we  shall 
have  peace  budgets  and  peace  appropria- 
tions and  we  shall  have  the  united  and 
enthusiastic  support  of  a  public  which  does 
its  thinking,  involuntarily  and  because  of 
the  spirit  of  the  times,  in  terms  of  peace  and 


24  AN   OPEN   LETTER 

not  of  war.  By  the  change  of  a  word, 
we  shall  have  adjusted  our  institutions 
to  the  thinking  of  the  people  and  of  the 
times  instead  of  continuing  foolishly  and 
futilely  to  breast  the  current  of  advancing 
thought. 

PATRIOTISM,    OLD   AND   NEW 

Patriotism  once  expressed  itself  in  en- 
thusiasm for  war,  but  war  was  the  chief 
business  of  the  older  states.  Practically 
every  man  was  a  soldier.  To  support  the 
state  could  mean  nothing  then  unless  it 
meant  the  support  of  war.  We  simply  have 
modeled  our  terminology  upon  an  ideal  of 
civilization  which  never  has  existed  in  our 
country  and  which  today  is  more  foreign  to 
our  thinking  than  ever  before. 

The  enthusiasm  of  our  people  is  for  peace. 
We  are  able  to  see  with  especial  clarity  just 
now  that  the  work  of  nations  is  hampered, 
not  helped,  by  war.  Our  people  are  doing 
things  which  demand  peace  for  their  accom- 
plishment. Our  patriotism  expresses  itself 
in  upholding  the  hands  of  those  who  are 
working  to  avert  war. 


TO   THE   NATION 

We  have  a  wider  patriotism  also,  which 
expresses  itself  in  world-neighborliness — in 
a  passion  for  justice  rather  than  for  strife. 
We  will  not  enthuse  over  anachronistic, 
wornout  symbols  of  greatness.  Symbols  are 
valid  with  us  only  as  they  express  our 
present  ideals. 

But  give  us  symbols  of  our  present 
ideals  and  we  will  support  the  state  with 
enthusiasm,  because  it  expresses  ourselves. 
There  is  in  the  United  States  no  lack  of  pa- 
triotism for  peace  with  honor,  and  that 
patriotism  is  the  state's  best  assurance  of 
patriotism  for  war,  if  peace  with  honor  shall 
ever  become  impossible  to  our  nation. 

New  York,  April,  1914 


r° 


UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA   LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED   BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period. 


19   f93C 


50m-7,'29 


VB  06252 


300080 

TV       / O/ ^ 
vj  /\      /^-'O'^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


